But to claim that society tells us what is attractive is naive. Some things (and some people) are inherently more attractive than others.

Let me burst your bubble here: It's a FACT that society tells its people what to find attractive.

What you find attractive is based at least somewhat on cultural norms and the things you have been exposed to throughout your life within your particular culture and society. You have your own individual tastes, but they are influenced by what society says and demonstrates to be attractive or not attractive.

So when you say "some things (and some people) are inherently more attractive than others", this is only true because society has dictated it to be the case.

To make this more clear: Several hundred years ago large women were considered more attractive because society valued them as they were considered well-fed and therefore likely to be from affluence (as you wouldn't be well-fed if you couldn't afford the food back then).

Now those women are not considered to be supremely attractive at all by most of society. If you took the thin models considered supremely attractive today and put them in that society, they wouldn't be as attractive - not just to the society, but to the individuals within that society who have assimilated their own feelings on attractiveness from that society.

You're right, for the most part, supermodels look like any other attractive woman you'd see in a bar on a Saturday night or laying out by the pool in Vegas. But there are tiny differences in symmetry that make the supermodels more attractive. You're free to be attracted to anyone you want but don't pretend that supermodel looks are a dime a dozen, because they aren't.

I think they ARE a dime a dozen. Just because most people (and especially most men) act like slobbering cave men dragging a club when they see a woman they have been conditioned to believe is attractive does not mean she's anything special except by those same societal standards.

But to claim that society tells us what is attractive is naive. Some things (and some people) are inherently more attractive than others.

Let me burst your bubble here: It's a FACT that society tells its people what to find attractive.

What you find attractive is based at least somewhat on cultural norms and the things you have been exposed to throughout your life within your particular culture and society. You have your own individual tastes, but they are influenced by what society says and demonstrates to be attractive or not attractive.

So when you say "some things (and some people) are inherently more attractive than others", this is only true because society has dictated it to be the case.

To make this more clear: Several hundred years ago large women were considered more attractive because society valued them as they were considered well-fed and therefore likely to be from affluence (as you wouldn't be well-fed if you couldn't afford the food back then).

Now those women are not considered to be supremely attractive at all by most of society. If you took the thin models considered supremely attractive today and put them in that society, they wouldn't be as attractive - not just to the society, but to the individuals within that society who have assimilated their own feelings on attractiveness from that society.

They really aren't a dime a dozen. Maybe the idea of who is hot is socially constructed, but the percentage of women who fit in that idealized description is extremely small.

Posted by bistiza on 2/5/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):While most of society defines a good-looking woman by the same boring and bland characteristics, "biz" actually chooses to think for himself, and "biz" likes a woman who doesn't have cookie-cutter society-defined looks.

There's nothing special about most women who are models or are considered good looking. They all have the same essential body type and the same facial features. Sure, they're not ugly by any means, but I find it amazing how many people think they are incredibly attractive when they have "dime a dozen" looks. You just don't realize it because you're told they're supremely attractive, both by societal pressures and sometimes explicitly, and you can't see beyond it.

while I will preface this by saying there is truth within these words in that many models are not where they are because they are attractive but because the have a look that is better called unique....I will point out that this is yet another shining example of need to promote self

anyone that doesn't think the way you do in your mind does so simply because they lack the ability to think for themselves.....you thinking that everyone that finds Bar attractive only thinks that way because they are told to think that way shows that the mind you seem so proud of is actually closed

That's exactly the same argument that he used in his defense of his "it's equally likely that the earth is only 10,000 years old as it is likely that it is 4.5 billion years old" theory.

Basically, anybody who believed in the older earth theory was a "sheep" who blindly followed the mainstream opinion, who were unable to think critically for themselves. Only he was open minded enough to look at the evidence for a younger earth (none of which he was able to produce) and accept it as just as likely.

Posted by bistiza on 2/5/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):While most of society defines a good-looking woman by the same boring and bland characteristics, "biz" actually chooses to think for himself, and "biz" likes a woman who doesn't have cookie-cutter society-defined looks.

There's nothing special about most women who are models or are considered good looking. They all have the same essential body type and the same facial features. Sure, they're not ugly by any means, but I find it amazing how many people think they are incredibly attractive when they have "dime a dozen" looks. You just don't realize it because you're told they're supremely attractive, both by societal pressures and sometimes explicitly, and you can't see beyond it.

I need to live where you are if women like Bar are a "dime a dozen". I see attractive women all the time, but none like that.

I will grant you that we elevate them a bit more because of their status or the "celebrity" mystique, but they're still knockouts. I see hot women everyday, but rarely see women that have my jaw dropping.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/5/2013 3:48:00 PM (view original):That's exactly the same argument that he used in his defense of his "it's equally likely that the earth is only 10,000 years old as it is likely that it is 4.5 billion years old" theory.

Basically, anybody who believed in the older earth theory was a "sheep" who blindly followed the mainstream opinion, who were unable to think critically for themselves. Only he was open minded enough to look at the evidence for a younger earth (none of which he was able to produce) and accept it as just as likely.

I don't engage evolutionists anymore because it's stupid. I won't sway them, they won't sway me. But don't act like there's more proof of your position than mine. There is as much scientific "proof" for creationism as there is for evolution. Science can be made to say whatever man wants it to say. The fact is, all of history could have taken place in the last 10,000 years. Or it could have happened painstakingly slowly over billions. No one really knows for sure.

All I will say is that to call believing in creationism and a grand design foolish, while believing that the world originated out of nowhere, followed by a giant explosion, and single-celled organisms evolving into a million different species is hypocrisy at its best.